No. of Recommendations: 24
Back in the early '00s, I was convinced that W was the worst US President in my lifetime. It took American voters about 6 years to figure that out, but by the time W and Cheney left the Whitehouse, his approval rating was down in the low 20% range (https://www.google.com/search?q=George+W+Bush+approval+ratin...).

I remember thinking at the time that it was amazing that 22% of US voters would still support that incompetent.

But the right wing echo chamber continued to refine their manipulation of stupid voters and that effort gave us Trump. Trump makes W look like a brilliant statesman and scholar by comparison. But Trump's approval rating is not only holding fairly steady around 40%, the right wing echo chamber has convinced the stupid voters not to believe actual news reports of facts.

And that 40% is strategically located in stupid voter states that benefit significantly from over-representation in the government - a demographic fact that is getting worse, not better.

I don't see this demographic issue changing any time soon. I don't see Democrats proposing legislation that would shift the imbalance of political clout to provide more equal representation. I am beginning to think that this nation has reached a point when our Constitution has outlived its value in many areas. But change is not on the horizon.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
SG:"And that 40% is strategically located in stupid voter states that benefit significantly from over-representation in the government - a demographic fact that is getting worse, not better."


Actually, we live in Constitutional Republic.....and of the United STATES of America. All those states have rights. Better for them, every state has exactly the same clout in the Senate - to insure that large states don't dominate the legislative process with the tyranny of the majority voting others 'off the island'.

Stupid voter states? Like stupid voter cities like Detroit and Chicago and Philadelphia and Baltimore voting "D" despite 80 years of declining fortunes under 'D' leadership and the stupid voters don't realize they have no hope and no future by keep electing 'D's who know no matter how bad they screw up the city, the stupid voters will pull the D lever next election? That's real stupidity at work. Right?

-------

SG:"I don't see this demographic issue changing any time soon. I don't see Democrats proposing legislation that would shift the imbalance of political clout to provide more equal representation. I am beginning to think that this nation has reached a point when our Constitution has outlived its value in many areas. But change is not on the horizon.:

Correct because for all we know it, in 2020, the country could elect a total R government, and the D folks would be frustrated......and if the laws had been changed, maybe they would be the ones voted off the island......

Nope, you aren't likely to get 'popular vote' to elect the Pres. Don't see that happening. We are not a 'democracy'. We are a Republic and one of STATES.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<And that 40% is strategically located in stupid voter states that benefit significantly from over-representation in the government - a demographic fact that is getting worse, not better.

I don't see this demographic issue changing any time soon. I don't see Democrats proposing legislation that would shift the imbalance of political clout to provide more equal representation. I am beginning to think that this nation has reached a point when our Constitution has outlived its value in many areas. But change is not on the horizon.>>


It's always amusing when salary guru parades his political despair! Usually about three times/week.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
All those states have rights. Better for them, every state has exactly the same clout in the Senate - to insure that large states don't dominate the legislative process with the tyranny of the majority voting others 'off the island'.

This is true.

However, it is also true that the framers did not intend that the people would be able to dominate the legislative process with the tyranny of the minority.

Minority rule is always untenable, even more so when it is maintained via voter suppression, changing rules to cripple your opponents when they win, egregious gerrymandering, and voter fraud.

When political plate tectonics don’t budge over time, an earthquake results.

This is the current situation.

AW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<However, it is also true that the framers did not intend that the people would be able to dominate the legislative process with the tyranny of the minority.>>


Actually, that's exactly the purpose of the US Senate.


The House of Representatives is the place where the tyranny of the majority is intended to rule.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Actually, that's exactly the purpose of the US Senate.


The House of Representatives is the place where the tyranny of the majority is intended to rule.



Both of these statements are flat out wrong. I suggest that you actually read about American history before commenting on it so you don’t look so foolish.

The purpose of giving each state 2 Senate seats was to ensure the small states that the larger states could not override their rights; to give them “equal” footing. They also gave the Senate 6-year terms so they could be a more deliberative body. It was certainly NOT designed to ensure minority rule, especially tyranny of the minority.

By the way, you may be interested to learn that originally there were only 13 states. The Founding Fathers never envisioned 50 states with so many underpopulated states.

The purpose of the House was to be more populist; to reflect the current mood of the majority of the people at the current time. That’s why House members are based on population and terms only run 2 years.

AW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
AW:"By the way, you may be interested to learn that originally there were only 13 states. The Founding Fathers never envisioned 50 states with so many underpopulated states."

Now, that's a good one. an 'Underpopulated State'.

What should be do? How about randomly selecting families in 'over populated states' and forcing them to migrate to 'under populated states' to even out the 'population distribution'?

Instead of 1 person per square mile, we could double it to 2 people per square mile through much of the west. Wyoming could use 250,000 or so folks. Heck, let's move 250,000 to Alaska! Lots and lots of wide open land there for ice ranching, reindeer herding, whale watching and catching, seal hunting, snowball fights.......<g>

I'd have to check, but I'd bet that most states in 1776 had a whole lot population that most of the midwest states today.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
Now, that's a good one. an 'Underpopulated State'.

California has a population of 39.8 million and is 13.3% of the US economy.

Wyoming has a population of 574k and is .3% of the US economy.

And they both have 2 Senators. I understand why this was done in 1776 with only 13 states. Today, it doesn't make much sense.

FYI - the estimated US population in 1776 was 2.5 million.

What should be do? How about randomly selecting families in 'over populated states' and forcing them to migrate to 'under populated states' to even out the 'population distribution'?

Actually, I've been talking with friends who, like myself, are getting ready to retire. I think we should start a movement to voluntarily move out of states like NY and CA and settle in places like WY and MT. It wouldn't take a lot to tip the scales in a few states. People in NY are more receptive than people in CA, needless to say. LOL

I'd have to check, but I'd bet that most states in 1776 had a whole lot population that most of the midwest states today.

The most populous state in 1776 was Virginia, with 447k, less than today's Montana.


AW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 16
California has a population of 39.8 million and is 13.3% of the US economy.

Wyoming has a population of 574k and is .3% of the US economy.

And they both have 2 Senators. I understand why this was done in 1776 with only 13 states. Today, it doesn't make much sense.


Out of curiosity, why doesn't it make much sense today, if it made sense in 1776?

The underlying rationale for basing representation in only one chamber on population remains the same: to allow states to have proportional representation as states, to protect against large population states using their majority against smaller states. That interest still exists. States like Vermont and Wyoming and Rhode Island and Delaware hand Montana (individually or collectively) have very few Representatives in the House. So a bill that directed that all federal infrastructure spending should be allocated solely to states with more than 2 million inhabitants (for example) would surely die in the Senate, whereas it would have a fighting chance in the House.

Now, you can make an argument that protecting the interests of States as States is both anti-democratic (it certainly is) and therefore in appropriate or unjust (far more open to debate). But that argument was just as true in 1776 as it is today. So I'm not sure I understand what's changed. Not the degree of variation in population - in 1770, tiny Georgia had only 0.1% of the population (smaller than Wyoming today), compared to Virginia's 19% (larger than California's today), but they both had the same number of Senators then as well.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
Out of curiosity, why doesn't it make much sense today, if it made sense in 1776?

Good question.

It has to do with the number of states.

Based on the US population in 1770 (closest estimate to 1776 I could find per state), the average population per state was 160,788. That meant 6 states were below that total and 7 states were above it.

According to current numbers, the average population per state is 6,432,000. That means 34 are below the average and 17 above (the data includes D of C).

The number of "small" states vs "large" states was roughly equal in the 1770s vs the current 2 to 1 ratio today, giving small states a greater proportion of the power.

So a system that was designed to give balance is now skewed.

AW


http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/thirteen-colonies/
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<The number of "small" states vs "large" states was roughly equal in the 1770s vs the current 2 to 1 ratio today, giving small states a greater proportion of the power.

So a system that was designed to give balance is now skewed.

AW>>


Your analysis doesn't analyze. It's purely arbitrary.


But you can amend the constitution to change it if you wish ----just get a 2/3rds majority in the House and Senate and get 3/4 of the states to ratify it.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Gerrymandering has given disproportionate power to the minority in both the House and Senate. That is what has changed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
According to current numbers, the average population per state is 6,432,000. That means 34 are below the average and 17 above (the data includes D of C).

The number of "small" states vs "large" states was roughly equal in the 1770s vs the current 2 to 1 ratio today, giving small states a greater proportion of the power.


Except that's really just skewed by the massive outlier of California, which has six times the average state's population - contrasted with the 1770 most populous state of Virginia, which had only 2.78 times the average. Drop California, and the national average goes to 5.6 million, moving the above/below ratio down to 3 to 2 instead of 2 to 1. Drop Virginia from 1770, and the line doesn't move at all.

The state just below the national average is Missouri, at six million people. That is not a small state. Look, the median U.S. state (by population) today is between Louisiana and Kentucky, about 4.6 million people. Those are not small states. Sure, they're less than the average - because the average is skewed by those super-populous states. We don't really have more "small" states - we just have two "super-sized" states in California and Texas that skew the average. Drop the top two and bottom two, and the mode gets very close to the median again.

The system is still pretty balanced except for California.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
AW""It has to do with the number of states.

The number of "small" states vs "large" states was roughly equal in the 1770s vs the current 2 to 1 ratio today, giving small states a greater proportion of the power.

So a system that was designed to give balance is now skewed."

The set up had little to do with 'population'. It had to do with the 'interests' of the states - farm states vs plantation states vs industrial center/port states vs logging/forested states vs mineral rich states, etc.

As as well as settlers vs land grant folks and every other way of slicing and dicing the various interests of people across the country.

I see no where in the Constitution where it mentions small states vs large states, nor even sets much of a criteria for a required population of a state in order to join the Union.

If the founders were so interested in having 'equal populations' per state they would have been adjusting state borders all the time, shifting federal money around to insure equal distribution of people, etc.

So what? 34 states are not big liberal cesspools? Those states are not the least bit interested in NY and CA and OR and MA and MD and CT horrendous real estate bills for gold plated services......and closed union shops and inefficiencies. And the folks in NYC have zero interest in discussing mineral rights, even though there are 20x as many as in all of WY.
When was the last time a coal mine opened in NYC? Or LA?

The only thing that goes by population is the House of Rep. Where you divvy up 450 representatives among the 50 states solely by population, and every state gets at least one.


t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"The system is still pretty balanced except for California."


I move that we offload CA to a separate county, burden them with the portion of the debt based upon population, and watch them do their thing.

Any brainwashed Californian seeking to escape and rejoin 'the rest of us' would have to go through a month long deprogramming course before entry allowed.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Except that's really just skewed by the massive outlier of California, which has six times the average state's population - contrasted with the 1770 most populous state of Virginia, which had only 2.78 times the average.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but 6 is more than double 2.78. So the compromise to Democratic principles of one person/one vote that was made in 1776 is twice as severe to California voters today as it was in 1776. I don't know how a rational person doesn't see a factor of 2 as significant.

Drop California, and the national average goes to 5.6 million, moving the above/below ratio down to 3 to 2 instead of 2 to 1. Drop Virginia from 1770, and the line doesn't move at all.

Drop California? On what basis is it relevant analysis to simply ignore the biggest part of the problem? Normally, intelligent people who apply analytical reasoning to address a problem focus on the biggest part of the problem. If it is legitimate to neglect a portion of a problem, then the portion that can be neglected is the part that contributes least, not most.

The state just below the national average is Missouri, at six million people. That is not a small state. Look, the median U.S. state (by population) today is between Louisiana and Kentucky, about 4.6 million people. Those are not small states. Sure, they're less than the average - because the average is skewed by those super-populous states.

And now you focus on the unimportant part of the problem - the states that are not getting representation in the Senate that is radically different from their population. It's like you don't understand mathematical principles at all. Analysis of the problem needs to consider the contributions that most impact the problem and can neglect the contributions that impact it less - not the other way around. If this were a math assignment, you are failing.

We don't really have more "small" states - we just have two "super-sized" states in California and Texas that skew the average. Drop the top two and bottom two, and the mode gets very close to the median again.

More of the same . . . You are basically saying that if we ignore the problem of unbalanced representation of the Senate, then it doesn't exist. Yeah . . . that's true. But a lack of balance in representation is the problem, so ignoring it is simply stupid and misguided.

The system is still pretty balanced except for California.

Yeah. And Trump is pretty honest except for the lies.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
But that argument was just as true in 1776 as it is today.

No. It was not just as true. The under-representation California voters experience today is far worse than the largest state under-representation in 1776.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Maybe we should simply assign all Congressional seats by land area.


That would encourage people concerned about voting rights to move to less populated uncrowded areas of the country. Why have cities needing gigantic 100 story buildings at monstrous expense? Having to run mass transit when everyone could be at work after a 3 mile commute that takes five minutes? Safer streets?

Divide the area of the country by the number of seats available.

That way, the farmers would get represented. The ranchers would, too, as would the loggers in most of the western US with the national and state forests.

Simple. By land area.

No more 'concentrations' of people having all the power in the HOuse and holding all the important positions like Pelosi and Schumer simply because of their 'home states'.

Well, we could keep the Senate....but change the House....and Electoral College...that too by land area.

Someone has to represent all the sheep and cows and birds interests too....and alligators and pigeons...reindeer and caribou.....


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Drop California, and the national average goes to 5.6 million, moving the above/below ratio down to 3 to 2 instead of 2 to 1. Drop Virginia from 1770, and the line doesn't move at all.

Some of us advocate having the three West Coast (I calls it Best Coast) states drop our and form a new country. "Madison"?

CNC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<But that argument was just as true in 1776 as it is today.

No. It was not just as true. The under-representation California voters experience today is far worse than the largest state under-representation in 1776.>>


Oh, boo hoo! You poor babies!


Examples of the oppression California experiences are the privilege to set environmental and other standards that conflict with Federal law. California uses it's political and market power to impose numerous standards that wind up being adopted much more widely.

".....known to be carcinogenic by the state of California" ring any bells?

Indeed, California is an imperialist power within the United States, grabbing up water and other resources that properly belong to the states from which they are taken.

The line of argument that claims California is put upon is just baloney.

And in addition everything else, California has supplied Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan as native sons who were elected President ---- a total of four times. Sorry about Jerry Brown.




Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
"Oh, boo hoo! You poor babies!"

Why do you have to dishonestly act like they are crying? A question was asked and was answered.

To pretend that the side you don't like is crying is nothing but pure dishonesty in an effort to smear a view you have no rebuttal for.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<"Oh, boo hoo! You poor babies!"

Why do you have to dishonestly act like they are crying? A question was asked and was answered.

To pretend that the side you don't like is crying is nothing but pure dishonesty in an effort to smear a view you have no rebuttal for.>>


Oh, I gave my rebuttal in my post. Sorry you can't handle the truth.

There's nothing wrong with moaning and groaning about the weaknesses of the constitution --- I do that myself rather regularly, complaining about the judicial supremacy carved out by Federal courts.

The issue of how the lawmaking power would be distributed between big states and small states was a key to adoption of the constitution, and the compromise was mandating a House of Representatives decided by population and a Senate decided by states. You can still complain about that if you wish, but nothing was more clearly identified in the constitution as it was adopted and ratified.

Now if you want something to complain about, I'd recommend complaining about the neat way the Senate has pretty much cut the House out of lawmaking by their filibuster rules. That gives a minority in the Senate the power to block legislation from being adopted that is favored by majorities in the House and the Senate. Democrats have won control of the House, but there is precious little they can do by themselves except vote to impeach Trump.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The system is still pretty balanced except for California.

Well, you’ve pretty much made my case. Thank you.

Much to the dismay of some, California and its citizens remain a part of the U.S.

Our Republic, as a representative democracy, was designed to be majority rule with strong rights, as enumerated in the Constitution, guaranteed for all citizens.

Minority rule does not make for a healthy democracy nor does it lead to good conclusions.

AW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Any brainwashed Californian seeking to escape and rejoin 'the rest of us' would have to go through a month long deprogramming course before entry allowed.

t.

Given the level of toxicity that exists in the current CA, there is ample evidence that a mere thirty days would never be enough to clear out the mental processes.

For many specimens (over 50%???), deprogrammers would have to declare them 'incapable of rational thought'. Permanently deny them exit rights.

I'm born and bred in CA; my dad used to get agitated with what he witnessed in his lifetime. Now? His grave has become an instrumented seismic zone matching our beloved San Andreas Fault.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Well, you’ve pretty much made my case. Thank you.

Much to the dismay of some, California and its citizens remain a part of the U.S.


Indeed - but that's not your case.

The purpose of the allocation of Senators was then, and now, to reduce the voting power of the largest states relative to the smallest. And that has not changed - and the number of states in those relative baskets hasn't really changed, either.

In 1770, you had one massive state (Virginia) and four small states (NH, RI, DE, and GA). The rest were all kind of 'middle' sized.

We now have (approximately) four times as many states, and the rough proportion of states in those baskets is basically unchanged. We have four massive states with about 20 million or more people (CA, TX, FL, NY). We have about 16 smallish states (including DC), running from New Mexico (2 million) down to Wyoming (.6 million). The rest, running from Kansas (3 million) to Pennsylvania (13 million), are middling in size.

All that's changed is that the big states have more population proportionally than Virginia did - but the underlying framework is the same. The system reduces the power of the very largest states in favor of the very smallest states, and we still have (roughly) the same number of each.

So if you believe that the principle of limiting the power of the very largest states was a valid one in 1776 (or more appropriately, 1790), that principle is unchanged both in general and in the specific attributes of the states.

Albaby

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
To pretend that the side you don't like is crying is nothing but pure dishonesty in an effort to smear a view you have no rebuttal for.

Before I realized that certain posters were nothing but ill-informed liars seeking to attack and insult those that presented facts and arguments they disagreed with, I often read and commented on their posts. As a matter of efficiency, I now simply ignore them. It requires some attention on my part to avoid accidentally reading one of their posts that is a direct reply to mine, but I've learned to do that.

From the comments that still bleed through from other poster's replies to those trolls, I can confirm that there is still no reason for me to bother reading them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
All that's changed is that the big states have more population proportionally than Virginia did...

THAT's THE POINT!!! That is what under-representation is all about. You are rationalizing the existence of significantly worse under-representation today by saying, "but the under-representation problem existed before and the only issue is that it has gotten significantly worse. If you only ignore the fact that it has gotten significantly worse, nothing has changed."

Rational people don't want to ignore the fact that the problem has gotten significantly worse, we want to see government address it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<Before I realized that certain posters were nothing but ill-informed liars seeking to attack and insult those that presented facts and arguments they disagreed with, I often read and commented on their posts. As a matter of efficiency, I now simply ignore them. It requires some attention on my part to avoid accidentally reading one of their posts that is a direct reply to mine, but I've learned to do that.
>>


These days salary guru perpetually comments on posts he refuses to read. It's really very amusing.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<All that's changed is that the big states have more population proportionally than Virginia did...

THAT's THE POINT!!! That is what under-representation is all about. You are rationalizing the existence of significantly worse under-representation today by saying, "but the under-representation problem existed before and the only issue is that it has gotten significantly worse. If you only ignore the fact that it has gotten significantly worse, nothing has changed."

Rational people don't want to ignore the fact that the problem has gotten significantly worse, we want to see government address it.>>


By all means, salary guru--- address it.


All you need to do to eliminate the US Senate is get a 2/3rds majority of the House and Senate to propose such an amendment and then get 3/4 of the states to ratify it.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
All you need to do to eliminate the US Senate is get a 2/3rds majority of the House and Senate to propose such an amendment and then get 3/4 of the states to ratify it.


Obviously, this is not a realistic solution. Nor is splitting California up into 4 states or having people move from CA and NY to small population states.

However, IF the Republicans and Democrats wanted to have a better, more democratic balance, there are 3 realistic steps they could take:

1) Have all states agree to have independent commissions redistricting states every 10 years so that the districts more fairly represented the population of the state; no gerrymandering. Let the people choose their representative, not the other way around.

2) Pass stronger voter rights laws that would outlaw voter suppression tactics and encourage more people to vote (early voting, voting places in proportion to population, prohibit cleansing voter rolls based on bogus methods, paper ballots for audit purposes, etc.).

3) Active and aggressive prosecution of actual voter fraud (such as the current NC case).


These may not be doable until we get rid of the current Republicans who have their heads up Trump's butt because all these tactics are the only way these Republicans can stay in power at the moment.

AW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Examples of the oppression California experiences are the privilege to set environmental and other standards that conflict with Federal law. California uses it's political and market power to impose numerous standards that wind up being adopted much more widely.


Poor SP still hasn't learned the difference between its and it's.

CNC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Umm: Why do you have to dishonestly act like they are crying? A question was asked and was answered.

To pretend that the side you don't like is crying is nothing but pure dishonesty in an effort to smear a view you have no rebuttal for.


He will FA this one, too.

CNC
... and my post because I quote yours.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
All that's changed

Actually what has changed is practically everything, so far as government is concerned. At the beginning states were more like countries. You could barely travel from one to the next, given that horseback was the only mode of transportation. Citizens were far removed from the Federal government, which was formed mostly for the purpose of declaring independence, fomenting war, and insuring liberties once that war was concluded. And later managing foreign trade, printing money (although that took decades) and so on.

The Federal government was financed almost entirely by tariffs which were invisible to the citizenry, law enforcement was a local issues, schools, where they existed were local, roads were local, almost everything was local. It made sense for "states" to have rights for and against each other, as disputes between them arose and could be settled far away.

Now the world has changed. The Federal government, after the great depression and World War II became far more active in the average person's life. Taxation is mostly federal, rights are entirely federal, important infrastructure is largely federal, and so on. Town governments and state representatives seem invisible to the common person (who here can name their representative in their *state* legislature?) while the Federal has an overweening presence.

It may have made sense at one time to have a bicameral legislature with "states" controlling one house (I'm not sure, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt), but those days have passed. Most states (curiously) do not have a state legislature with "counties" controlling one house, most foreign governments do not have this arcane system, it is time we stopped pretending that Hamilton had all the answers for all time and think about maybe changing back to the ideal of "one voter, one vote" rather than disenfranchising the most productive among us in favor of the rural dwellers who stamp their feet at how badly they're treated, while simultaneously take triple or quadruple the voting power away from the rest of us.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
Now the world has changed. The Federal government, after the great depression and World War II became far more active in the average person's life. Taxation is mostly federal, rights are entirely federal, important infrastructure is largely federal, and so on. Town governments and state representatives seem invisible to the common person (who here can name their representative in their *state* legislature?) while the Federal has an overweening presence.

While I certainly agree that the role and influence of the federal government has dramatically increased, the above is clearly wrong.

State government is still incredibly important. State and local government spending was about $2.8 trillion last year, roughly the size of the federal government. There's no similar way to quantify regulation, but massive areas of the law are still under the purview of state legislatures: family law, property law, trusts, estates, torts, contracts, insurance, criminal law. Many (if not most) of your legal rights are state, not federal - things you are entitled to by dint of state statutes or local ordinances, rather than federal rules. Even areas that have become more federal over the years (like environmental law, for example) are still areas in which states are prominent, both in implementing the laws (a lot of federal environmental permitting is delegated to states) and in continuing to regulate beyond the federal backstop.

So we're still in a world where much of our governmental function and most of our laws are done by state government, not the federal government.

Most people don't realize that. I think you're right that most people don't pay much attention to state law and local government. That doesn't mean those things aren't important. People should pay far more attention to their state legislature and city commission than they do.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Actually what has changed is practically everything, so far as government is concerned. At the beginning states were more like countries. You could barely travel from one to the next, given that horseback was the only mode of transportation. Citizens were far removed from the Federal government, which was formed mostly for the purpose of declaring independence, fomenting war, and insuring liberties once that war was concluded. And later managing foreign trade, printing money (although that took decades) and so on.


Interestingly (and somewhat off topic), one of the gripes the early Americans had with Britain is the lack of ability to communicate between the colonies. The Crown mail system was designed to send letters to and from England, not between the colonies themselves. Developing a robust mail system was a major priority and Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin as postmaster. By "Congress" I mean the Continental Congress in 1775. So the US Post office actually pre-dates both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<1) Have all states agree to have independent commissions redistricting states every 10 years so that the districts more fairly represented the population of the state; no gerrymandering. Let the people choose their representative, not the other way around.

2) Pass stronger voter rights laws that would outlaw voter suppression tactics and encourage more people to vote (early voting, voting places in proportion to population, prohibit cleansing voter rolls based on bogus methods, paper ballots for audit purposes, etc.).

3) Active and aggressive prosecution of actual voter fraud (such as the current NC case).>>


Of course none of this affects disparities among states in population at all.

It's just another political agenda.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<Examples of the oppression California experiences are the privilege to set environmental and other standards that conflict with Federal law. California uses it's political and market power to impose numerous standards that wind up being adopted much more widely.


Poor SP still hasn't learned the difference between its and it's.

CNC>>


Oh boo hoo! Another liberal being oppressed by an apostrophe.

What a silly reply.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I could certainly FA your post for it's bullying nature, but frankly your remarks are too trivial to make that worthwhile.

Besides, ridicule is a better vehicle to punish such behavior.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<All that's changed

Actually what has changed is practically everything, >>


That's quite true.

Of course, if you wish you can follow procedures in the constitution to change or replace it:

<<The first method authorizes Congress, "whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary" (a two-thirds of those members present—assuming that a quorum exists at the time that the vote is cast—and not necessarily a two-thirds vote of the entire membership elected and serving in the two houses of Congress), to propose Constitutional amendments. The second method requires Congress, "on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states" (presently 34), to "call a convention for proposing amendments".[3]>>


Help yourself!


Of course in the past half century, the most popular way to amend the constitution was to have the Supreme Court do it --- by a 5-4 majority, and Federal appeals courts and District judges do that pretty much every day.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Interestingly (and somewhat off topic), one of the gripes the early Americans had with Britain is the lack of ability to communicate between the colonies. The Crown mail system was designed to send letters to and from England, not between the colonies themselves. Developing a robust mail system was a major priority and Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin as postmaster. By "Congress" I mean the Continental Congress in 1775. So the US Post office actually pre-dates both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.>>


Interesting, I'd never heard about that. But iot makes perfect sense, the postal service was apparently the social media of the day, and needed to promote REVOLUTION just as social media is being used in France today.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Actually what has changed is practically everything, so far as government is concerned. At the beginning states were more like countries. You could barely travel from one to the next, given that horseback was the only mode of transportation. Citizens were far removed from the Federal government, which was formed mostly for the purpose of declaring independence, fomenting war, and insuring liberties once that war was concluded. And later managing foreign trade, printing money (although that took decades) and so on."


The Constitution gave the federal government only 7 areas of control over the country, including printing money, conducting treaties with foreign entities, the self defense of the country, taxation to conduct federal business (mainly on imports at the time) here is part of it



The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--

And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

---

It goes on to talk about interstate commerce (no state taxation) and other stuff


https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei


Well, depending where you lived, you could easily get to 2 or 3 states lickety-split....


t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
" Have all states agree to have independent commissions redistricting states every 10 years so that the districts more fairly represented the population of the state; no gerrymandering. Let the people choose their representative, not the other way around. "


Yeah, how well is this going to work if every ten years you wind up in a different district, or the guy/gal you like is suddenly living in a different district and not your rep any longer?

And of course, there is no way to slice and dice by population, race, creed, country of origin, number of transgender bathrooms, all the districts. Let's see...we need 10,000 LGBT folks moved from this district to that, but they can't be Hispanic, AA, or Asian......and we need 20,000 African Americans to shuffle here, 31,406 whites gotta go over here......oh, and we have too many 'seniors' in district 2 and not enough 'young folks'.......

Ain't going to work with 'identity' politics these days. "Somebody" will sue.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
SP: I could certainly FA your post for it's bullying nature, but frankly your remarks are too trivial to make that worthwhile.

Absolutely nothing bullying about the post I quoted, or in my quoting it. But you have a hair-trigger FA finger, you must admit. You seem to FA more posts than the entire rest of the TMF posting community. Doesn't that make you proud?

CNC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<And of course, there is no way to slice and dice by population, race, creed, country of origin, number of transgender bathrooms, all the districts. Let's see...we need 10,000 LGBT folks moved from this district to that, but they can't be Hispanic, AA, or Asian......and we need 20,000 African Americans to shuffle here, 31,406 whites gotta go over here......oh, and we have too many 'seniors' in district 2 and not enough 'young folks'.......

Ain't going to work with 'identity' politics these days. "Somebody" will sue. >>


Just keep white men off the roles as voters and I imagine issues would go away.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<SP: I could certainly FA your post for it's bullying nature, but frankly your remarks are too trivial to make that worthwhile.

Absolutely nothing bullying about the post I quoted, or in my quoting it. But you have a hair-trigger FA finger, you must admit. You seem to FA more posts than the entire rest of the TMF posting community. Doesn't that make you proud?

CNC>>


Liberals, like most people, only recognize hateful behavior in others, not their own.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Of course none of this affects disparities among states in population at all.

No it doesn’t. But all of these actions (gerrymandering, voter suppression, and voter fraud) exacerbate the situation and are clearly undemocratic.

It's just another political agenda.

Please explain how ensuring there is no gerrymandering, voter suppression, or voter fraud is in any way a political agenda?

Unless of course a political party uses these tactics to hold on to power against the will of the people.

AW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Yeah, how well is this going to work if every ten years you wind up in a different district, or the guy/gal you like is suddenly living in a different district and not your rep any longer?

Which already happens every 10 years, minimum, to some people, and more often in places where the courts rule unconstitutional gerrymandering and require more changes between census'.

So what is your point? That it can never be done? It is already being done, it's just being done in partisan fashion, where some states have demonstrated a way to do it in un-partisan fashion with independent commissions.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<It's just another political agenda.

Please explain how ensuring there is no gerrymandering, voter suppression, or voter fraud is in any way a political agenda?>>


Your political agenda is that you want things to be more "Democratic." Capital "D".




Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Your political agenda is that you want things to be more "Democratic." Capital "D".

I see you are unable (or afraid) to answer a simple question; How is ensuring that there is no gerrymandering, voter suppression, or voter fraud in any way a political agenda?

Why is it that Republicans fear democracy (small d) favors Democrats (Capital D)?


AW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<I see you are unable (or afraid) to answer a simple question; How is ensuring that there is no gerrymandering, voter suppression, or voter fraud in any way a political agenda?

Why is it that Republicans fear democracy (small d) favors Democrats (Capital D)?>>



I see you continue to be unable to fathom what a political agenda IS.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
(SP:) You seem to FA more posts than the entire rest of the TMF posting community. Doesn't that make you proud?

CNC


Well, it's a thinkless job, but SOMEONE'S gotta do it!

Whatever.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Oh! I get it now. Fairness is part of a political agenda. Who Knew!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I see you are unable (or afraid) to answer a simple question; How is ensuring that there is no gerrymandering, voter suppression, or voter fraud in any way a political agenda?

Why is it that Republicans fear democracy (small d) favors Democrats (Capital D)?



I see you continue to be unable to fathom what a political agenda IS.



You made the accusation but continue to be unable (or afraid) to support your accusation.

Your attempt at deflection only makes your position seem weak and unsupportable.

AW
Print the post Back To Top